Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Grass v. Eastern Associated Coal, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Barry P. Grass appealed a district court's denial of relief in his civil suit against his former employer and physician. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinions dated March 23, 2006 and August 30, 2006. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-03-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-2064

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Barry P. Grass appealed a district court's denial of relief in his civil suit against his former employer and physician. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinions dated March 23, 2006 and August 30, 2006. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    6 views3 pages

    Grass v. Eastern Associated Coal, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Barry P. Grass appealed a district court's denial of relief in his civil suit against his former employer and physician. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. Accordingly, the appeals court affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in its opinions dated March 23, 2006 and August 30, 2006. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-2064

    BARRY P. GRASS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    and
    KAREN L. GRASS; JAMES L. GRASS; JENNIFER L.
    GRASS; MICHAEL R. GRASS,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL COMPANY,
    Defendant - Appellee,
    and
    NOHL A. BRAUN,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
    District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr.,
    District Judge. (2:05-cv-00496)

    Submitted: March 22, 2007

    Decided: March 27, 2007

    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Barry P. Grass, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Ellen Hauptfuehrer, STEPTOE


    & JOHNSON, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Thomas John Hurney, Jr.,
    Erin R. Stankewicz, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Barry

    P.

    Grass

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    orders

    accepting the magistrate judges recommendations and denying relief


    in his civil action alleging claims against his former employer and
    physician.
    error.

    We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

    district

    court.

    Grass

    v.

    Eastern

    Assoc.

    Coal.

    Co.,

    No.

    2:05-cv-00496 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2006; filed Aug. 28, 2006 &
    entered Aug. 30, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 3 -

    You might also like